You thoughts on the big video-function craze?

<p>All it takes is working one recent press conference to understand the video inclusion. If you go to any kind of press event, photographers almost always carry two cameras. In the past, it was to have a long zoom and a short zoom. Now, for quite a few photographers, one of the cameras will have a microphone in the hot shoe and be used most of the time for video. Your media, batteries and lenses are all the same because the bodies are the same. Another advantage of this setup is that the still camera has a backup and can still be used with a different lens. For the sports thing I'm working all this week, there were three events already this week where video would be useful, and the big event tomorrow doesn't require video. Everyone will have a 24-70 on one camera and a 70-200 on another tomorrow and the audio will be in the bag.<br>

<br /> The reason that this is acceptable is that most press video is consumed on the web now. You don't need hours of video, you don't need to be able to watch it on a 60 inch screen. It's going to run in a window on a web browser for a few minutes. And many outlets can't afford to pay for a second person with a video camera.</p>

<p>So right now, it's a big thing for pros. And you can't offer stuff to pros and not eventually have it filter down for consumer usage.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A response to <a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a> : <br /> Joseph, when I said "And, I notice that the big guns, the top-of-line cameras, for the most part, still do not offer video as part of their specifications," I was talking about the "current" offerings, not model production schedules. CURRENTLY, the D3x, the D700, the EOS 1 Ds Mark III, the E-3, and of course, the M9 do not offer video, which suits me just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Michael, but you put that forth as "proof" of something, as a sign that it's all some sort of "conspiracy".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could it be this whole thing is nothing more than hype on the manufacturers' part to convince consumers that they really "need" a video function on their SLR type of camera?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing one can infer from which models have video is when they were released. That's all, nothing else.</p>

<p>I appreciate your point, that video really isn't that useful to a single wedding shooter, trying to switch back and forth between video and stills during the course of the wedding. But that's not why the camera manufactures added that feature. They added it for folks with more time on their hands. Point and shoots had video first, partially because it's easier to do on those platforms (they've been liveview for a decade) and partially because that target demographic is exactly the sort of person who'd want to carry just one gadget on vacation or to a school play, or just to pull out of the closet for a kid's birthday party (thanks, Patrick, for that example). DSLRs have a huge number of markets</p>

<ul>

<li>product shooters aren't shooting video (but we love anything that makes the liveview work better, and there's a synergy with video) </li>

<li>single wedding shooters don't care about video, but a team does.</li>

<li>hobbyists, amateurs, whatever you want to call them, create "personal art". They experiment. Movies are just one more way to experiment, one more way to "have fun".</li>

</ul>

<p>When it comes down to something like that Willie White quote of yours</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Maybe I'm wrong, but does all the extra technology packed inside necessarily mean that the money building the camera could have been spent elsewhere? (better materials for example? better viewfinder? better screen etc etc)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no "maybe", he is wrong. He doesn't know product design and planning. If the market research convinces the product planners that a feature will sell X number of cameras, there's a budget allocated to that feature based on a percentage of X. Video is what transformed the spectacular failure of the Canon 5D into the success of 5D II. Do you think there was market research that said "a 'better screen' will make 5D II a success, let's do that instead of video".</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> But, all would be solved if the manufacturers did it the way Panasonic currently does it with the G1 and the GH1. This gives the photographer a choice of what technologies he wants to put his money into, would it not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you're in luck. All the manufacturers have "solved" the problem exactly the way that Panasonic did with G1 and GH1.</p>

<p>GH1 came out 6 months after G1, and GH1 is <strong>replacing </strong> G1. They cost the same, $650, it's just hard to see that because the GH1 is normally sold as a $1499 bundle with a $849 14-140mm, and G1 is sold as $799 bundle with the $149 14-45mm. GH1 probably wouldn't have come out so close on the heals of G1 (just 6 months) if it weren't for video, the other GH1 features (better AF and AE modes, the neat "oversized" sensor that lets you shoot 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 aspect ratios with the same image diagonal) aren't that compelling and would likely have waited until G2 in another year. Video is the reason Panasonic added an "H" to the G1 so early in the cycle, just like it's the reason Nikon added an "s" to D3 and D300, and why Canon pulled 1D IV forward. Unless a company has some sort of general bias against video (Leica and Sony are two good examples) you can bet that any of their future cameras are going to launch with video.</p>

<p>The still only, DSLR without video is dead.</p>

 

<p>And coming back to this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've read a couple articles now "informing" photographers that they need to embrace shooting videos along with their still work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you've read "a couple of" articles that state (in your interpretation, anyway) an opinion that is contrary to that of the much larger number of articles that most of us are familiar with, I'd suggest, next time, putting the links with your original post, not several posts later after the thread gets hot. At this point, I'm pretty much unwound and cooled off from the heated discussion (in other words, "I'm done") and not much inclined to go read them.</p>

<p>Well, thank you for your in-depth explanatons and discussions Joseph. I know I learned some things from them!</p>

<p>Wow Joseph W. Thats a very in depth look at video in DSLR.</p>

<p>Michael and Johnathan, you're welcome. Glad you enjoyed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>yup, cell phones.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly my point. They are NOT better off using a all-in-one device. The temptation here is that people will believe that they will be able to make these videos and then extract stills that are good enough to blow up as prints. It's bad enough today with people blowing up 3MP digital camera images to 8x10's.... most of those people would still be serviced better with a disposable film camera. Just go to any average (non photographer) persons house and look around at the pics on the walls and on the fridge. The pics that are a good 5 years old are sometimes absolutely stunning... just about everything newer than that is a pixelly, muddled, crappy mess. And people spending $1000 on an all-in-one camera are going to expect the video to be high enough quality to extract stills, and once again they will be screwed. Sorry to beat the dead horse here but I really honestly believe that companies putting out all of these low quality digital cameras are screwing their customers... basically making their customers pay for a decade of RND that wasn't ready for deployment. And this new trend of video DSLR is just another example.</p>

<p>Patrick, no reason to apologize for your position. The whole idea here is to express your opinions. Thanks for your input!</p>

<p>I think video in a still DSLR is a fantastic idea. But, the buyer does have to be made aware, or have an understanding, that when they switch to the video mode, they have to totally switch to video mode. Meaning, once the "video switch" goes on.....out come the external microphones, out come the steady-cams, out come the fluid head tripods. This is what all the marketting is not telling the customer. Luckily, photogs like Vicent Laforet were thoughtful enough to explain all this "extra" equipment in his blog that went along with his Canon sponsored short films. Kinda saved me from jumping in a little too early for my finances. The $3K or so for the cam and editting software is only the beginning......there's another $3K (easily) required to make it work to a quality production.</p>

<p>I think one of the next steps has to be a redesign of the actual body. Niether the camcorder body or the classic 35mm body shapes are ideal for both video and still. They have to break out of that century old mindset and give us something that works for both.</p>

<p>I was discussing this topic a few weeks ago with a fellow photog. he is a Canon guy where I am a Nikonian. His main complaint was the fact that they drilled holes into his camera body for moisture to get in. Now I have never torn apart my camera to see how the mic works but he well may have a valid point. specially on cameras that are supposed to be weather sealed. anyone have an idea how this is accomplished?</p>

<p>Jonathan, good point! I was also wondering how the "weather sealing" was achieved on these highest-end models. Nikon has already "drilled" holes for the microphone (for voice annotation) way before the video function was added (on D2 series), so there should be some sort of know-how.</p>

<p>I doubt that the mic implementation will be all that tough. Videographers that I have seen doing local commercials use an external mic and a whole crew to set up. The Panasonic GH-1, for a pittance compared to pro gear, sounds really fascinating. I look forward to seeing that clever optic with the silent motors. As the man says, 'we aint seen nuthin yet.' Just the beginning and it is exciting. I tingle in anticipation :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>main complaint was the fact that they drilled holes into his camera body for moisture to get in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One issue would be where the holes are located. For the GH1, they are right on top of the built-in flash, a terrible place for the mic to be as it will be wide open to rain from above. The Nikon D90 mic I think is on the side of the camera, not facing the sky so it helps a great deal.</p>

<p>Not reading everything above, and from a different prospective, I shoot a 3-chip (2/3") video camera that has a (original valued) $25K lens on it. I had a discussion this last week with a partner I've worked with, and who I actually learned from years ago, and he's looking to move towards a full frame sensor Canon camera to produce commercials, DVD's etc. I also had a discussion this year with a retired National Geographic videographer who's also gone to a full frame Canon camera for personal/business video work. I consider both of these guys the leading edge of the pro market and I foresee alot of work being done with still cameras that shoot video. They won't replace 3 chip cameras for some applications but they will produce alot of content, so expect to see the video options upgraded in the future. I'm just waiting for a video option for my 4x5 Graphic. (^:</p>

<p>Well, I think the leading professionals are shooting video with RED system and extract necessary still images from the video files.</p>

<p>I just hope it isn't adding much to the cost of a camera or causing something more useful to be left out because I consider it a totally useless feature, for me. Also, "Live View" as implemented on my Nikon, is a once tried never used again feature.</p>

<p>It's very interesting hearing all your experiences and likes/dislikes. I wonder if the manufacturers are listening?!</p>

<p>Akira... and yet people still shoot stills on movie sets. Heck, some people still shoot B&W film stills on movie sets. I think the rationale is to provide a record that WASN'T captured by the main camera... which is my whole point with the birthday party. $1000 for one camera that makes OK videos and bad stills from the video is probably not as good an investment as a cheaper dedicated video camera with higher quality and a few disposable film cameras. </p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

I think your assessment of current situation is very correct and fair, and I have nothing against that.</p>

<p>However, I think it is also true that virtually all of current consumer level videocams has still image function and more and more DSLRs incorporate video function, which should indicate a certain common direction for the (very near) future, even both functions can still be rather crude in terms of function and quality. I suppose that we are all sensing that this situation will eventually be changed as the technology develops. I would look at the RED system not only as the state-of-the-art professional image recording system but also as the forerunnner or even the "prototype" of the consumer level image capturing machine.</p>

<p>I think that the danger of new technology is that people adore too much of the "newness" more than the "quality" and are eventually getting accustomed to that "crude quality of new things". Remember that the ground-breaking Casio QV-10 was a 0.25MP camera. The image quality was nowhere near the acceptable level. But the easiness of capturing images, uploading them to the PC and sharing them on the net papered over the poor image quality. Eventually, people are accustomed to that and when 0.41MP, 0.68 or 1MP camera by other manufacturers followed , people were amazed by their "superior" image quality. I think the same thing is happening in the worlds of videocams and MP3 audio players.</p>

<p>I really like the current trend, because through the years I have used both analog and digital film/video/still cameras, and often end up regretting that I did not bring both on a trip. (I am not a professional photographer, and usually do not bring a boatload of equipment, even though my wife thinks so :-) I seriously doubt I will buy another video camera when my current DV camera packs up, I am just waiting for something in between the GH-1 and the E-P1 to come out, I want a small camera with full HD and image stabilization built in. A couple of more years will do the trick, I think.</p>

<p>As far as what pro photographers need to do, it's fairly clear that most pros who do weddings or journalism are expected to do video more and more. If you're at the top of your field, no, otherwise yes.</p>

<p><br /> As far as camera design goes, it seems clear that the video functions aren't proving a major barrier to the evolution of the DSLR. Look at any extensive product line (i.e., not Leica, which is an extreme case) and the video capable DSLRs are priced right about where "this year's model" should be, with about as much improvement as can be expected for that price point in other areas, like low ISO performance.</p>

<p><br /> As far as whether or not you need it, it's a personal preference. You don't have to be a good video photographer to get some benefit from the feature. Recently, I was photographing some gadgets, and shot a little video along with the stills to illustrate how the parts moved. Not great art, but useful. Also recently, I was at a friend's, after the party had officially ended and I was taking a few portrait shots of my friends and their kids, when suddenly the oldest daughter grabbed her mom and pulled her out into the living room floor to waltz around the room with the music. I had my Nikon D90 so I quickly flipped over to video and captured those few minutes where mother and daughter danced. A home movie subject, again not "art", but meaningful to that family, and better for having the music and motion in it than just a random still image.</p>